DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Pages

Wednesday, 2 August 2017

Andrew Lewis and Philip Bailhache at PPC Hearing. (part one)

Deputy Andrew Lewis

So yesterday (1st August 2017) saw the appearance of Deputy Andrew Lewis at the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) Hearing. The Deputy was there, by all intents and purposes, to convince the Committee that he hadn't breached the Code of Conduct for elected States Members. The important aspect to note here is that PPC was not looking to discover whether he had told lies or not.

From PPC PRESS RELEASE: “What matters to the Committee is whether, during the course of his time as a States Member, throughout his dealings with the IJCI and his responses to the Assembly, Deputy Lewis’ actions complied with the Code. In other words, we will be determining whether his actions maintained and strengthened the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States and its members.”
At the start of yesterday's Hearing the Chairman read out a statement informing Deputy Lewis, and those in attendance, that PPC accepts the findings of the Care Inquiry (IJCI). The Chairman reiterated that the Committee was there to discover if he (Andrew Lewis) had breached the code of conduct for elected States Members. To most fair minded people this would suggest that PPC (since it agrees with the IJCI's findings) agrees that Deputy Lewis lied to the States and to the IJCI a number of times. This (lying under oath) would constitute a charge of perjury for the likes of you and I but Jersey's Attorney General has given, what we believe to be a "legal opinion" (not a "ruling" as reported in the local MSM) that Deputy Lewis can't be PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY. We believe this "legal opinion" should be challenged and that Deputy Lewis should be subject of an independent CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

Senator Philip Bailhache

Deputy Lewis arrived at yesterday's Hearing with legal counsel and it would be a fair question to ask who is paying for it? But probably one of the biggest farcical moments (there were many) was when Senator Philip Bailhache sat alongside Deputy Lewis and it became apparent that the Senator was legally representing him, or was his "Mackenzie's friend."

The deference shown (by the Committee) was palpable, if not shameful and embarrassing. Senator Bailhache was given a free rein to quote from the English Dictionary as to what a "lie" is or isn't. This had nothing to do with the purpose of the Hearing (as explained above). Senator Bailhache spoke for around 35 minutes from a pre-prepared statement that for the large majority (in my opinion and others who were present) had nothing to do with PPC's TOR's. Any mere mortal would have been closed down and told to stick to the TOR's but not Senator Bailhache.

It was no surprise that Philip Bailhache turned up to defend Andrew Lewis and further seek to undermine the work of the Chief Minister and the IJCI. He has consistently attempted to undermine the Care Inquiry to include ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT it receiving much needed funds to complete its work.

He was (as the Bailiff of Jersey) presiding over the infamous in-camera states debate where Deputy Lewis told some of his alleged "lies." The Hansard of this debate was bravely leaked, by a whistleblower, with a conscience, to Bloggers and was published HERE. Part of that debate, where Andrew Lewis was stating he had seen the MET interim report the Bailiff (Philip Bailhache) intervened and said: "Minister, do not go down this road please."
Relevant extract:

The Deputy of St John (Andrew Lewis):

"The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."

The Bailiff (Philip Bailhache):

"Minister, do not go down this road please."
Why did Philip Bailhache not want Andrew Lewis telling people he had seen the MET Interim Report? Was it his (unelected) place to tell a politician what (not) to say?

We must also be mindful that the IJCI questioned the honesty of senator Bailhache. Granted it didn't go as far as calling him a liar but a fair minded person could reach the reasonable conclusion that the inference was there where in its REPORT when addressing Philip Bailhache's notorious Liberation Day speech it wrote:

"Sir Philip said that perhaps his juxtaposition of words was unfortunate. He accepted that as a highly experienced lawyer he was accustomed to choosing words carefully. His purpose was to address the island as a whole and encourage Jersey people not to feel ashamed of their history. The apparent comparison between the importance of child abuse and Jersey’s reputation did not occur to him."

"We have considered whether Sir Philip’s words indicated a belief on his part that the reputation of Jersey was of more importance than the child abuse investigation. We cannot accept that a politician and lawyer of his experience would inadvertently have made such an “unfortunate juxtaposition”. We are sure that the way in which Jersey is perceived internationally matters greatly to him. However, his linking of Jersey’s reputation to the child abuse investigation was, we are satisfied, a serious political error, rather than a considered attempt to influence the course of the Police investigation."
We also have the Senator's apparent views on "lying" from when he was on the ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Those views don't appear to ring "true" right now.

Was Senator Bailhache the right person for Andrew Lewis to have defending him at the PPC Hearing? If you were wondering if "The Jersey Way" had been changed because of the IJCI report we think this appearance (Lewis/Bailhache) should confirm it has gone nowhere.

We will publish part two of this posting exposing the farce that was the PPC Hearing yesterday. The inadequate, or non existent, questioning from the Committee and much more. We will publish this after the PPC has published its findings which are expected soon.

186 comments:

VFC, could you please clarify whether Lewis had both legal counsel and P Bailhache representing him at the PPC hearing?

This is what Standing Orders stipulates for a PPC hearing panel, Article 57:"(9) The elected member whose act is being investigated shall have the right to address the persons conducting the investigation, whether they are the PPC or a panel, and, when doing so, to be accompanied by a person of his or her choice."

Two points to note, Standing Orders explicitly permit the member to be accompanied by a person, not multiple persons. If Lewis was indeed accompanied a lawyer and by P Bailhache, then this was a breach of the Orders.

Second, the Orders permit a member to be accompanied by a person of his or her choice, but not to be represented by them. The Order is quite clear - since there is an express permission for the member to address the panel, there can be no implicit permission for another person to address the panel on their behalf.

READERS PLEASE NOTE If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

When it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread.

NB. later replies, even to comments earlier in the thread will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked.

The way for readers to be sure of reading the whole thread without omissions is to click "Load more..." right at the bottom, and then read from the beginning."Load more..." only loads another 50 comments or so, therefore to get the whole thread you may need to keep clicking on "Load more..." until it is no longer displayed.

The Privileges and Procedures Committee have reached a conclusion following yesterday’s hearing and have decided that Deputy Andrew Lewis of St. Helier breached the Code of Conduct for Elected Members.

The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, Connétable Len Norman said “The Committee intends publishing a full explanation of its reasons for reaching this conclusion, indicating the action it will be recommending to the Assembly. However we realise that Deputy Lewis needed to be advised of its decision at the earliest opportunity, especially given the public interest in this matter and he has been informed of the Committee’s finding earlier today”.

The Committee will not be issuing any further comment on this matter until its report is published.

158 Outcome of investigation(1) When an investigation is complete and the panel (if any) appointed to conduct it has reported to the PPC –(a) the elected member whose act has been investigated shall have the right to address the PPC and, when doing so, may be accompanied by a person of his or her choice; and(b) the PPC shall review the matter and form an opinion as to whether or not he or she has breached of the code of conduct.(2) The PPC –(a) shall inform the elected member of its opinion and of the reasons for it; and(b) may report the opinion and reasons, and any action taken by the PPC, to the States.(3) A report may be presented to the States in writing or made orally by the chairman of the PPC in a statement.

A proposition should be brought immediately to add to Article whichever it is in the States of Jersey Law, the Article which lists the factors which DISALLOW someone from standing for the States:

“lying to the States or to a Scrutiny Panel or . . . . “

The law change proposed would have to be carefully thought through. Who proves that someone has lied? How to make the law robust but impossible to misuse in a vexatious or party political way? (i.e. in the Jersey Way, which we have to assume will still exist)

Anyway the point is - liars should pay a political price and not be allowed to stand for the States. Lying is worse than being made bankrupt (in most cases).

Readers might be interested to learn that I have submitted another complaint against Deputy Lewis following his "performance" at yesterday's Hearing. I believe he was "not as honest" as he could have been and have given PPC the evidence. Who would I complain to about the conduct of PPC?

Definition of misleadmisledplay \-ˈled\; misleadingtransitive verb: to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit His comments were a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.intransitive verb: to lead astray : give a wrong impressionexciting as they are, they mislead — E. M. Forstermisleader nounmisleadinglyplay \-ˈlē-diŋ-lē\ adverb

I see the "" Jersey Way "" is still going strong. And the horrifying truth has been proven the TRUTH & we were telling the TRUTH, and now this, This fight is far from over, especially from us the Survivors. Philip Bailhache needs to go as does Andrew Lewis.

I would like to congratulate ex-senator Syvret for having written such an erudite and lucid article which is featured in the opinion page of tonight's JEP. He really has nailed it! Again!It is such a loss to the island that his honest and forthright approach is no longer a feature of the states assembly. It really is criminal that he was removed from office in the way that he was. He was right all along. The Frank Walkers of this world should hang their heads in shame. Shame on them. These are the people behind the Lewis lies _ the real culprits.

Spot on Phil. And incidentally, I always think your comments are good and to the point. There are people behind the Lewis lies_ the real culprits. So true Phil. Thank you for supporting my views, including those on Syvret.

After years of not buying the jep I have reconsidered .... I really believe there has been a sea change .... and twice this week I have actually paid good money for one .... and despite their passed failings, if they remain balanced in their reporting I will continue to do so. I respectfully suggest that you also reconsider . Just imagine what a balanced JEP could do for all of us who have been asking for openness and transparency in government.

The 'old' guard are (and have been) running around like headless chickens, they simply cannot believe the disaster that has befallen their eight hundred year control of the 'serfs' of this Island. I find it totally sickening that Philip Bailache has the gaul to say Lewis has been treated 'unfairly'. This is the same person who (unelected) switched off Senator Stuart Syvrets microphone, the same person who reads in planes, the same person who sat and did nothing at VC. And let us not forget good old Terry le main who when Stuart 'tried' to make his statement jumped up and screamed at him, what a bunch of low life s....t heads. The sooner these dinosaurs are gone the better. Perhaps the most sickening of all(and P.B would be oblivious to this)is that Lewis, Walker, Ogley and no doubt others never saw fit to allow Graham Power the right to having a representative with him,no they just knifed him in the back. Well Andrew I suggest you look up the word 'KARMA' and that goes for all the other low lifes.

Thanks so much to Trevor Pitman and Mike Higgins for getting the in camera debate transcipt of Lewis' weasel words out in to the wider public eye. It might be yeats too late but at least one of the dispicable Jersey Way gang caught firmly in the headlights. Time to give the Bailhaches, Birt and Ogley a friendly shove so they can join him.

A few commentators have already hit the nail on the head and the punishment inline for Deputy Andrew Lewis will amount to nothing. A suspension from the States on full pay? A Vote of no confidence in a position he's already stepped aside from? What can they do to him when he's only a Back Bencher?Lewis won't stand again in 9 Months time, he'll feel there's no point, and he will only get on with life after with his marketing business and put it all behind him.PPC is a circus run by Monkeys who may as well admit they fire blanks.

The only real punishment for AL and one which will begin the clean-up of the States, and which will make honesty a legally significant concept is outlined in my Reply to Anon at 2 August at 19.05 approx. 12 comments above this one.

"Was Senator Bailhache the right person for Andrew Lewis to have defending him at the PPC Hearing? If you were wondering if "The Jersey Way" had been changed because of the IJCI report we think this appearance (Lewis/Bailhache) should confirm it has gone nowhere."

I agree, the CoI - the "IJCJ" - has gone no-where.

The Jersey polity was never - remotely - going to be capable of establishing and running a real statutory public-inquiry into such a toxic and important subject.

But, I did - nevertheless - give it a chance.

I wrote to it when it first began - made useful suggestions to them - and asked that they simply comply with the Salmon Principles, and the ECHR, and "Part e" of their legislative instruction.

They flatly refused to act in those lawful ways (& in fact are so ashamed of the "decision" they took, they buried it, hiding it from the "Key-Publications list" on their web site.)

So - here we are.

One full decade down the road - and what has changed?

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

I told you so.

Right again.

The Government you deserve.

So - what then must be done to actually fix the system - to ensure the real and effective rule-of-law protects vulnerable children into the future?

Demand from the UK authorities who empower our local spivs - that we finally get an effective and real policing, prosecution, and judicial system.

You see - if we had that - then we would not have a "police force" - which refuses to even hear formal, evidenced criminal complaints - for example - complaints of the murder of a CoI witness.

A witness who - given the predictable whitewash of the CoI report - would have been speaking to the world's media - and wholly damning the CoI - for its failure to hold Philip and William Bailhache to account - for their roles in the Blanche Pierre cover-up.

The present PPC process for disciplinary hearing concerning States Members is flawed. They have known about it since 2012 (R.34/2012), having been embarrassed by Deputy Bob Hill (complaint by Senator Shenton) in 2010 and again by Deputy Nick Le Cornu (complaints by persons of no consequence) in 2015.

Deputy Hill wrote in 2010:

“…in order to ensure that the investigation of the complaint made against me by Senator Shenton is carried out in a way that complies with Convention rights, the evidence-taking part of the investigation must be held in public and I must be allowed the basic rights of a fair hearing…

1. A prompt and clear statement of the precise allegations against the Member;2. Adequate opportunity to take legal advice and have legal assistance throughout; 3. The opportunity to call relevant witnesses at the relevant time; 4. The opportunity to examine other witnesses; and 5. The opportunity to attend meetings at which evidence is given, and to receive transcripts of evidence.

Senator Bailhache alluded to many of these points and deficiencies in the process in Deputy Lewis' defence. The deepest irony is that the appeal to natural justice and fairness was something Deputy Lewis did not afford to Police Chief Graham Power at his suspension. He defended and repeated his belief in summary action against employees before the Care Inquiry when giving evidence, clearly having learned nothing from the experience.

Due process and doing things in a correct and fair manner is alien to the Jersey Way.

As for sanctions there are few. It might come to a vote of censure before the entire States Assembly, but since so many of the Ruling Party think he has done no wrong (he was only carrying out orders from Ruling Party Leader and Chief Minister Frank Walker), they won’t want to have to show their support publicly.

The Right will not want a by-election in St Helier No3 right now with so much national scrutiny of government responses to the Inquiry implementation, so don’t expect a resignation.

Deputy Lewis will be encouraged, by the most reactionary elements of the Jersey Way, to hang on in there, not seek re-election in May 2018 and accept a pour boire directorship somewhere (close to the Boss at Andium Homes?) in gratitude.

Can you explain why Convention rights apply here? PPC is not a court of law or a tribunal. It cannot hold disciplinary hearings as you claim - it can only investigate, and and has no powers to impose any form of penalty or sanction (i.e. it cannot take any disciplinary action).

What civil rights are involved here that would fall within the scope of Article 6?

That excuse for a man, called Andrew Lewis, should never again be allowed anywhere near public office. Frank Walker likewise. There is more to come to light here. Victims and those who have suffered because of their support for the police investigation into decades long child abuse have time and real justice on their side. The game is afoot as Sherlock Holmes would say. It, is,however, a long game.

You missed out Carrie Modral, a terrific campaigner who has worked tirelessly for Jersey's Care Leavers. Also John Hemming although he has, for some reason, he's called it a day. So too have the Denver Gals which is a pity.

VFC, under the previous posting - on 28th July at 08:22 - a reader made the following important comment: -

"I note that the new post of Children's Commissioner will report directly to the Chief Minister. This is simply staggering. For all his mealy-mouthed platitudes and faux outrage, by this single act Gorst demonstrates that he has absolutely no intention of implementing meaningful reform.

"How can a supposedly independent commissioner report to a single person? Just imagine how such a person would have been treated by Frank Walker when he was Chief Minister, had they raised concerns. They would have been oppressed, ridiculed and removed.

"This is actually truly shocking. The post holder should report to a robust panel of commissioners drawn from a cross section of the community, including abuse survivors.

"Utterly disgusting."

I echo that comment. The very notion that an individual commissioner of this type - who's very reason for existing is to oversee & scrutinise the executive departments for their failures - should then report to the Chief Minister - THE very office which has shown itself to be rabidly willing to engage in child-abuse cover-ups on behalf of the executive departments - as it did in opposition to me, to Graham Power - is simply laughable.

That ludicrous notion must be put to the States - and the States - if they're serious - must oppose it.

But - hell - readers here - know as well as I do - nothing's going to change.

Ian Gorst is every bit as stark a "useful-idiot" - just as much as Frances Oldham was.

I know some readers here find this point tedious - but, you know - I don't care: "Jersey is a gangster enclave - the very polity of which is - in-and-of-itself - a criminal enterprise - and the culpability for that - the mens rea - and the actus reus - lays with a cohort of Whitehall gangsters and spivs."

When we clean-up our polity - after 800 + years - it's going to be with those Whitehall gangsters in-the-doc.

Actually the COI under Francis Oldham produced an excellent report and Ian Gorst at least is trying to institute reform such as the removal of the bailiff and the separation of powers, despite heavyweight resistance from the Bailhache power base. He is also serious about enforcing the COI recommendations which can only be a good thing for the islands child care system.

@05:55That sounds like a press release from Gorst. A load of unevidenced waffle and positive spin. Actions are all that count, and if Gorst is truly serious, why has he established the office of childrens's commissioner in such an inappropriate way?

Did BBC Jersey drop the PPC decision on Andrew Lewis from its 10.30 pm news report or had I just missed it somehow? What can we deduce from this action if they did ditch it. CTV covered it as its lead story at both 6pm and 10.30pm. It seems to me to be an important story that should be covered.

Hey, let's face it - the Jersey Child-Abuse Disaster is a cancer in the heart of the BBC as a national / international institution. After all, BBC child-raper and necrophiliac psychopath Jimmy Savile - who - whilst we can't say for sure - but who just might have been - brought to justice for the children he raped in Jersey - by the Jersey child-abuse investigation - in 2008 / 2009 / 2010 - etc - had that police child abuse investigation not been sabotage - with the pro-active help of the BBC in Jersey - from November 2008.

The conduct of the BBC in Jersey - and - even more so - the individuals who work for it - has for many years made me shake my head in wonder.

The theory that holds the most water on this is as follows-- It was nothing to do with child abuse or Operation Rectangle. - It was something to do with an individual with a great deal of clout. - Graham Power was collating a case against this individual. Witnesses were coming forward who claimed he had raped them. - The Jersey Way saw this potential case was stopped. The way to do that was to suspend Power (and pressure witnesses)- It was necessary to get Kinnard out of the way too. She resigned quite unexpectedly as Home Affairs Minister a month or so before Andrew Lewis was given the role. -Lewis lied in the States during that in-camera sitting. He undertook the suspension although he was backed up by other prominent culprits.When serious criminal situations arise, ones of embarrassment, such a son of a prominent individual importing vast quantities of drugs, or a rogue nurse killing off patients, including a patient who survived a failed murder, or a serial rapist with a great deal of power, then the Jersey Way sets in, big styli and these incidents are deleted from the record. However, if you are a scummy drug dealer or rapist, then depending on who you are, the weight of the law may be unequally applied, all part of the Jersey Way.

"The Police Chief Graham Power was unlawfully suspended by the Jersey / London mafia for their wholly corrupt objective of sabotaging the Jersey child-abuse investigation."

The theory that Graham Power was suspended to cover up child abuse was dismissed by the COI.So you are no better than Sir Philip Bailhache if you are going to cherry pick the Report yourself. You either accept the Report as a whole or you do an Andrew Lewis, the latter of which is causing chaos.

@05:26Your comment about accepting the report as a whole simply makes no sense. It is perfectly rational to hold the view that the report got some things right, and other things wrong, or didn't go far enough.

It's also important to bear in mind that Stuart Syvret not only has a great depth of knowledge of the extent of child abuse in Jersey, and exposed a great deal of what is in the COI report, but also had a close-up view of political corruption in Jersey for many years.

I think any intelligent observer understands that the COI terms of reference were carefully framed to avoid dealing with the underlying problem, which is the extent to which the British Crown is culpable for child abuse in Jersey through its wilful refusal to procure constiutional reform. Even the most naive observer would have to recognise that successive AGs have allowed child abusers to escape justice in order to protect the status quo.

The Committee says it will release a full report on their findings, including what action they think the States Assembly should take as a result.

According to the Greffier of the States, this could include:A personal statement of apologySuspension from the States for a maximum of seven daysFormal censureA vote of no confidence in his role as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee (a role he has already temporarily stood down from)

Gratified to be included in such distinguished company Beats a knighthood by a mile. I like to think that being off island gives me a slightly different perspective and allows me to be a bit more cheeky.

I too miss Leigh (Denver Gals). Her contributions were to the point and articulate and I know from other fora that she is committed to the wider fight against child abuse. Sadly she does not appear to have been online for over a year now. I was told she was OK but preoccupied elsewhere. An exceptional lady who has in the past given me great encouragement personally. I wish her the best that life has to offer.

As you say Polo, Leigh, the articulate and wise Denver Gal is missed very much by the CSA campaigners. It will be a good day when she returns to the cause and I'm sure she will. It's also great having your off island perspective too. Thank you Polo.

I am very aware of the fear and fact of retribution on the island and I spend time elsewhere online making the case that there are circumstances, such as in Jersey, where substantive and intelligent debate takes place where the commenters are anonymous, and justifiably so.

In the general mainstream anonymity is equated with trolling and is frowned upon. People have to be constantly reminded of justifiable exceptions. And the comment threads on this blog are a shining example of constructive anonymity.

I have tended to post in various places (blog/twitter) under different monikers. This is usually not from a need to remain anonymous but purely through historical accident. However, recently for my Facebook account and as a commenter on an Irish clerical site and the online JEP, I have changed to my full name (Pól Ó Duibhir) as anonymity there was being frowned upon and preventing people from taking me seriously. I don't feel that need on my own blog or here as I think in both these places I have established a certain amount of credibility. Anyway I'm only a few clicks away from me for anyone who wants to bother contacting me.

I would remake one plea I have made before, here and elsewhere, that anonymous posters might adopt a nickname and stick with it. It would help discussion enormously. I realise it could give rise to impersonation but consistency of style and content should sort that out over time. For example, I can usually smell Jon from the message no matter what moniker he uses.

On a slightly related matter, I am, believe it or not, at my most restrained on this blog as I appreciate the risk that Voice runs and have no wish to make life any more difficult for him than it is. I think this is a sentiment shared by serious commenters on this blog who accept Voice's good faith and are grateful for all the hard work he puts into it.

I do occasionally lose the run of myself on Twitter from time to time though (@Irlpol).

LOL Polo you are bang on, and I agree re team Voice hard work. I also go off on one on twitter on a regular basis and in particular pushing that scumbag Lewis to do the decent thing and resign from politics. Asking him to come clean and tell the truth about this current debacle for once would be asking for the impossible though.

On reflection though since I do that under an alias I should really adopt the same here. So henceforth.......

Former Bailiff Michael Birt 'speaking out' about abusers in latest court case. Bless. Could this be the same Crown Officer who like Bailhache the COI heard would not let police in the Jervis-Dykes case question or pursue thier pet Jurat Le Breton for his part in bullying at least one pupil in to silence?

Let us for one moment take a sideways glance at the Lewis "I saw a report" If what Lewis actually saw was the letter from Warcup AND then proceeded to use this as his means to suspend Chief of Police Graham Power this would mean he has used a letter (summary) from one person without any proof that what was said had been varified by a second, official party and that the content was true. This really beggers belief, on this basis I could write a similar letter to Lewis and say the world was FLAT and on the same acceptance principle he (Lewis) would believe me. WAFJ

Well, yes 18.48, but it is actually far worse than that. Bear in mind that David Warcup's letter was used to suspend Graham Power, a direct result of which is that Warcup was promoted to Graham Power's job.

However, let us not be naive. Warcup's letter would not have landed on Lewis's desk, unsolicited, out of the blue. There was a conspiracy here, and Warcup's letter was simply part of a pre-agreed, choreographed sequence of events. The conspirators - and we all know damn well who they are - made the decision to remove Graham Power and then decided how to make it appear justified.

It was a straightforward criminal conspiracy, and currently Lewis is the only one with his arse hanging out in public.

Was Bailhache at the PPC meeting to 'advise' Lewis, or was he there to remind and intimidate him to stick the the preposterous script?

We should never lose sight of the fact that Warcup was completely out of order in introducing any version or résumé of the MET report into a letter to the Minister for any purpose whatsoever, worst of all in any disciplinary process.

Nor should we lose sight of the fact that Warcup was never properly called to account for what he did. The Inquiry concluded that Power's dismissal was not motivated by a need to derail Rectangle and that it was therefore outside their remit.

I have always felt that, even were this true, and remembering that allegations against Person 737 related to adult rape, any possibility of political or outside interference with the police was within the Inquiry's remit as possible corroboration of such interference when it came to child abuse.

The more I reflect on the Inquiry the more Stuart Syvret's credibility increases.

And that is not to take in any way from the value of the published oral and documentary testimony at the Inquiry. But there is clearly unfinished business still out there.

I have read the candidate brief for the new Children's Commissioner. Reports are made to the Assembly not the Chief Minister. "To undertake examinations, make reports on particular matters and to report annually to the States Assembly on the work of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for Jersey regarding matters affecting children and young people". "To develop creative and engaging means of ensuring that the voices and opinions of children and young people inform the working of the Office, the Children’s Commissioner’s work plans and Annual Report to the States Assembly." I find no reference of reporting to the Chief Minister.

It is sad to see they have turned their face against local candidates. I think Simon Bellwood or Trevor Pitman would be in possession of many desirable qualities for the role, not least speaking truth to power.

It stands to reason that Bailhache was there to intimidate him to stick to the preposterous script. Lewis is the only one who believes in himself....Can someone please tell him that he is completely on his own!?

to Anonymous at 19.17you are so right, what made Warcup write this letter at this particular time ? I have always thought that the timing of Graham Powers suspension was no accident. Lewis makes out that things just sort of "happened" as concerns developed, this pantomime was orchestrated, hence the suspension letters created on the previous Saturday morning (when offices are empty)waiting till Graham was off the island on family business. A press release prearranged. The Metropolitan Report was not even complete and was not even meant to be more than "a critical friend exercise", Power was about to retire. The whole thing stinks, Why the urgency? The longer Lewis stays, the more denials are made by the key people ,Walker and Baillaiche the more questions are raised and the more suspicions it raises.posted by;An extremely strange person

Yes the very same safe in which GP believed his most recent employment contract was stored. The one that would have provided him with legal representation in any disciplinary action taken by the Minister. That contract was apparently not in the safe. All trace of it has disappeared from the Human Resources department too, I believe. Is this not something that needs looking into?

Would I be correct in saying that (then) Staff Officer Dave Birmingham was instrumental in the failure of the States of Jersey Police to account for the contract of employment and the recording of the conversation with Stuart Syvret?

Another thread on a previous story refers to him as the person then present to ensure that the contents of the safe were recorded properly.

"10.43 It was clear that Operation Rectangle was going to continue with or without Graham Power’s presence; he had never, in any event, had a significant operational role in the investigation and, following the arrival of David Warcup, had been content to leave the running of the investigation to David Warcup and Michael Gradwell. Neither of them came from Jersey, and we have no reason to believe that they would have taken the opportunity of Graham Power’s suspension to close down the investigation or to take any other steps that they would not have taken had he remained in post."

1) Power was under heavy political pressure to reign in Lenny Harpers talks to the international press, he refused. Many witnesses realised that this was indeed a trustworthy Chief of Police and trusted him ( and Harper ) and came forward out of the shadows to give evidence against state abuse. 2) Mr Warcup wanted Power gone so he could take over his highly paid and pensioned position. The States members caught on to this, and had a good look at his antics thus refusing to shoe him into the ex Police Chiefs very big shoes. Mr Warcup if you remember left Jersey under a cloud, saying he had ben unfairly criticised. He also refused to give evidence to a scrutiny committee at a later date.

It was Mick Gradwell who refused to give evidence to the Scrutiny Panel. David Warcup did give evidence. It was at this Scrutiny Hearing it became apparent that Mick Gradwell had leaked confidential information (while the Child Abuse police investigation was still live) to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and undermining Child Abuse investigations.

You are cherry picking the Inquiry Report again.You either accept the whole thing or you reject it.This is being picked up upon elsewhere because you are doing the same thing as Philip Bailhache and Andrew Lewis by only agreeing to some of the Report.

What utter cobblers. By your reckoning, it must be either 100% complete and accurate in every way, or 100% wrong in every way. Lewis and Bailhache are perfectly entitled to criticise certain aspects of the report, and accept others. If they can produce evidence to support their criticisms, fair play.

This isn't a religion, you know. There's no papal infallibility at play.

A simple person might want to treat a flawed Abuse Inquiry report as if it was the word of Allah, but in order that the £23,000,000 was not entirely wasted it makes sense to accept what is clearly true in their findings and comment on what is implausible.

As predicted the Abuse Report scored well on hand wringing 'generations of children were appallingly abused and let down for decades etc, etc.'

They found that Lewis repeatedly lied [WHO KNEW?] about the unlawful suspension of the legitimate Police Chief but they say that they are clueless as to WHY.But having filed to determine WHY they announce that it was nothing to do with the abuse investigation

IF it were a matter of "You either accept the whole thing or you reject it" then the only logical response is to reject it because of so many things, including the most basic of failing to obtain testimony from a number of absolutely CENTRAL witnesses.

These issues are NOT going awayhttp://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

The role of the children's commissioner will include:...' To undertake examinations and make reports on particular matters and to report annually to the States Assembly on the work of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for Jersey regarding matters affecting children and young people.'

So what on earth is wrong with this? The commissioners report will be made fully public and open to scrutiny. On top of this the COI panel will be invited back to review all developments in 2 years time.

Maybe so ... but I find it hard to believe that post COI, with planned external and independent reviews, that anyone could seriously believe that the commissioners report would be no more than a cosy chat over a cuppa in the chief ministers office behind closed doors!!

"but I find it hard to believe that post COI, with planned external and independent reviews, that anyone could seriously believe that the commissioners report would be no more than a cosy chat over a cuppa in the chief ministers office behind closed doors!!"

But the Jersey Way is beyond belief .........and is clearly still intact!

I'm beginning to wonder whether you are being deliberately obtuse. Look, this isn't difficult to understand. When you describe a person as "reporting to" another person, it means you are managed by them. Not that you just write reports for them.

The childrens' commissioner is managed by the chief minister. The chief minister can therefore tell them what to do. So the chief minister can ask to have a draft copy of annual report to the states before it is circulated. If the chief minister doesn't like what is written, he can demand that changes are made. The childrens' commissioner can refuse. The chief minister can sack them, and appoint somebody more amenable. They can also arrange for a PR hatchet job on the commissioner to portray them as incompetent etc etc as political cover.

This is not a hypothetical scenario in Jersey. It has happened on several occasions in the recent past. Ask Graham Power, Stuart Syvret, Simon Bellwood, John Day, the former States Treasurer, etc.

A ministerial descision has been signed by Gorst which states that the role of commissioner must be independent from interference of states members or the civil service. An annual report will be given to the chief minister by the commissioner and presented to the states assembly. The commissioner will be independent and will NOT be managed by anyone in the way you suggest.

The article you refer to is a news article ... it is not an official gov document ... and you have selectively quoted from it ... the actual sentence that you refer to also goes on to say that the commissioner will act without fear or favour to government and other agencies ( which I can't remember just at this moment) In contrast to this we have a ministerial decision which states that the role of commissioner will be independent of states members and the civil service and which is an official document.

Of course I have selectively quoted from it... no amount of verbiage about reporting without fear or favour etc amounts to a gnat's testes if - as the statement clearly states - the commissioner reports directly to the chief minister. If that is the case, then it is not an independent office.

As far as the ministerial decision stating that the role will be independent etc, it says no such thing. You are quoting from the report attached to the MD, not the MD itself. The report contains nothing more than recommendations, and the MD itself does not say anything about oversight of the commissioner.

I give up. If you want to believe a badly researched gov news article as opposed to a ministerial decision with an accompanying com report with recommendations that the commissioners independence will be enshrined in law ... and that not even reform jersey will oppose ... then go ahead and keep making your argument. I've put my argument and I'm afraid we will just have to agree to differ. Unless you come up with something that is more evidence based I'm not going bother replying.Phil

You have absolutely no basis for claiming this is a badly researched news article, other than it suits your argument. You have simply invented this. The commissioner is appointed by the chief minister, and candidates are expected to meet with the chief minister. Why? Why is the appointment not made directly by the panel? Why does the chief minister need to meet candidates?

You know, I don't think Ian Gorst is a bad person. I think he does want to reform childrens' services and I don't think he is likely to interfere too much in the workings of the commissioner. But imagine if it was a Frank Walker instead. Would you have any confidence in any appointment of this nature? Or be confident that the commissioner was inviolate and able to act without fear or favour? That an awkward commissioner wouldn't just be removed and replaced?

This is the problem with Jersey - control is never truly relinquished by the establishment. They always retain a hand on a lever that they can use if need be. No matter how much they use the word independent when describing this role, the lever remains.

The article in question IS seriously deficient. It fails to mention the most fundamentally important feature of the appointment of the children's commissioner ... which is that the independence of the role of commissioner and its freedom from interference from states members and civil servants alike will be enshrined in law! How could a well researched article not mention this explicitly. It is, as others have said, of fundamental importance. Instead the news article makes some inane comment about reporting to the chief minister without fear or favour from government. It is not at all clear what this means. It's a government news article that is deficient.Re Frank Walker ... I agree about your control argument but it should also be noted that FW and his civil service chiefs ... ogley, pollard etc. would never have countenanced the type of positive initiatives that are being proposed here for the very reasons that you gave.There also has to be a strong line of communication between the executive i.e.the COM and the commissioner for obvious reasons e.g.no doubt the commissioner will be bringing forward proposals regarding updating of the children's law and government will have to pass this legislation. For this reason I think it a good thing that Gorst should meet with the commissioner at the earliest possible moment.Don't forget also that the COI panel will be returning in 2 years time to review the initiatives that have been taken and you can bet your bottom dollar that one thing that they will be taking a long hard look at is whether the commissioner has been able to do their job without political or civil service interference. The sort of checks and balances that have been lacking in the past. I see these developments as very positive and sure, there is a lot more to do, but it is a small step in the right direction ... others may have a different view.Phil

Not 100% sure on this, but I am pretty certain the advert in the JEP made mention to 'reporting to the Chief Minister' which raised alarm bells with the person who told me and indeed myself. Furthermore the word Independant was not used which is a very vital requirement for this role.

Hi again Gill, I think I have found the jep article and it actually does use the word 'independent' ... her it is ...ALMOST £1.5 million has been set aside over the next two and a half years to create the position of a Children’s Commissioner – who will earn a six-figure salary.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst has signed off a ministerial decision to fund the creation of the new role, which was recommended by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry in its report published last week, as well as a three-person support team.

The report made seven other key recommendations for the Island’s children’s services including building up a sustainable workforce by recruiting and training suitably qualified staff for Children’s Services at all levels.

The ministerial decision states that the commissioner must be ‘independent’ from the influence of States Members and the civil service.

Under the order, £238,000 has been allocated from contingency funds this year and £590,000 in 2018 and 2019 to pay for the appointment and salaries of the new team.

The accompanying report says that the ‘primary function’ of the commissioner will be to ‘protect and promote the rights of children and young people in Jersey’, including:

Reviewing existing law, policy and practice in relation to the rights of childrenProviding a complaints and investigation service for the rights of childrenBringing any matter they believe is relevant to the attention of the States Assembly or ScrutinyPublishing reports on any matters being investigated or consideredAn annual budget of £125,000 has been allocated to cover the pay of the commissioner, including pension and benefits. The support team is due to include a research policy officer, communications/engagement officer and a manager. A total of £190,000 has been set aside each year to fund the team’s remuneration.ENDI think that this article speaks for itself ... clearly independence from political interference is explicit which as you rightly say is so important.Phil

Read more at http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/12/1-5-million-of-funding-for-childrens-commisioner/#1OpVlH7ZEWV26CcD.99

I was actually referring to the advert that went in for the Children's commissioner. The fact that it did not state Independant struck me straight away. No doubt this was put in the JEP by a department of the States and only a couple of weeks or so ago at the most. I recycled yesterday, but I will have a look at the Berwick ad.

Hi Gill, I agree with what you say but as we both know you can't always believe what you read in the jep My understanding is that Berwick Partners (U.K.) are handling the recruitment of the commissioner ... I'm not 100pc sure that they are the sole agents but I believe so. Their advert says nothing about being 'managed by' or 'reporting to' the chief minister. Although certain duties are specified I feel from the advert that the commissioner will have the power to develop the role as he/she seems fit in the best interests of children and young people, which has to be good. There is no hint at all that the role will be politically controlled in the way that some commentators are suggesting.

Yes, and I'm sure there was no hint in Graham Power's job description that Jersey's chief of police was expected to turn a blind eye to the proclivities of the better-connected rapists and child molesters.

Your right there wasn't ... perhaps this is why Gorst has signed a ministerial decision stating that the role of commissioner must be independent and free from interference from states members and the civil service. There will also be external independent reviews. These are policy decisions which are progressive and in my opinion should be welcomed by all those concerned with fixing our broken child care system. Positive steps in the right direction. Still loads more to do for sure but positive initiatives nonetheless.Phil

There is also a more extensive candidate's brief available from the Berwick site. This also refers to an annual report to the States Assembly. In addition it says "To consider and make representations to the States Assembly and Government of Jersey about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children and young people in Jersey." Which seems straightforward enough.

The news report on the Jersey Government site (gov.je) specifically states that the Commissioner will report directly to the Chief Minister. Whether this came from Andrew Green or not is hard to say. He is quoted elsewhere in the piece.

On reflection, it may be technically necessary that the Commissioner's Annual Report is submitted to the States Assembly through the Chief Minister's Office but, if so, this should be purely a transmission mechanism to enable it to be laid before the Assembly. The Chief Minister should not have any influence over its content. If he then wants to reply on behalf of the Government that's another matter entirely.

Perhaps worth mentioning that the truly independent and non-politicised Jersey Data Protection Commissioner is also required to lay an annual report before the States. After the chief minister has seen it.

Ah well, at least we take some comfort from that precedent. What could possibly go wrong?

I hope Graham Power also makes a complaint that his copy of his employment contract and the recordings of his telephone calls with Stuart Syvret were stolen from within the locked cabinet in his office at police HQ whilst he was suspended. In any competent jurisdiction, an anti-corruption unit would be investigating that sort of thing.

And if I were Syvret, I'd be demanding, under the data protection law, that the copies of the telephone recordings be returned to him. They are his personal data. Anyone searching for the Syvret tapes might also find Graham Power's contract in the same dusty box. I would suggest that whoever carries out the subject access request searches in Morier House, not just the various police buildings.

"And if I were Syvret, I'd be demanding, under the data protection law, that the copies of the telephone recordings be returned to him. They are his personal data. Anyone searching for the Syvret tapes might also find Graham Power's contract in the same dusty box. I would suggest that whoever carries out the subject access request searches in Morier House, not just the various police buildings."

Oh - I all-ready did that.

Some years ago.

And was lied to.

On the very evidence I have in my possession - lied to - by the Home Affairs Minister & Department.

Well quite possibly. If the Rag is right in keeping putting air head Kristina Moore forward to succeed Gorst as Chief Minister they are hardly likely to get any better. Moore makes even Vallois and Judy Martin look good.

Polo - thanks for the most useful links. What would we do without you?

This first link from the States website cannot be attributed at Andrew Green as his quote closed at an earlier point. Therefore I am still uneasy that the chosen incumbent for the role will seemingly be reporting to the CM. All the below is a very big 'ask' in Jersey.

'The Commissioner will report directly to the Chief Minister and is expected to act ‘without fear or favour’ of Government, children’s agencies, and the voluntary and private sectors'.

Again we have another big 'ask', which seems rather contradictory to the first statement. From my point of view the CM IS part of that very Government. I could be wrong and I will stand to be corrected (I have become ultra cynical), but I am not entirely convinced.

Once again, thanks Polo.

The ministerial decision states that the commissioner must be ‘independent’ from the influence of States Members and the civil service.

Interesting viewpoints but PPC are so limited to the punishment they can hand out to Lewis he may as well be classed as bullet proof. He will never admit to lying either.The Jersey Way is very much alive in PPC protocol by the incredibly lenient punishments in its toy town arsenal.

I'm not even convinced that Lewis can be suspended at all, despite the Greffier's comment. Perhaps somebody else could comment, but the only mechanism for suspension seems to be where the presiding officer has asked a member to withdraw for using unparliamentary language during a debate. In thks event, the States assembly can vote to suspend the member.

I have voted for the past five elections. That is ever since I have been able to. For the first time I am not sure if I will next time. This won't achieve anything I know. I even know it will probably allow the very worst sort of people, the usual Establishment crew, to be re-elected. It is simply that I don't think my vote will make any difference any more. There are no Trevor or Shona Pitmans, Stuarts or Ted Viberts any more. Guts and willingness to risk the slings and arrows of the Establishment seem beyond politicians these days. Deputy Higgins excepted and he regularly must feel like a spare todger in a brothel with no support.

The piece seems to suggest that the entire population of Jersey were aware of endemic child abuse, they weren't; the revelations came as a complete surprise to most people. It makes no mention of the conflict between the sensational media reports generated by the initial police management of the investigations and the more professional and accurate management later adopted. Stuart Syvret has not been "vindicated" the evidence of child abuse was accepted once it was revealed and most people wanted a thorough professional impartial investigation of the facts and as many perpetrators and those who did aid and abet by covering up to be prosecuted. Operation Rectangle was vigorously investigated by some very capable officers from the outset (despite the management failings) and, in fact was given a blank cheque to do so. To suggest that Jersey is "different" due to its having a Govt largely independent of the UK for historical reasons, is ridiculous but it does indicate the "colonial mentality" which seems to be another aspect of the "Jersey Way"

Sounds like Frank Walker's press secretary wrote the comment at 08:11 - or is that "phil" again, having another stab at the alternative government kool-aid facts.

Anybody who can claim that Stuart Syvret has not been vindicated is either a liar or a moron.

Anybody who can claim that evidence of child abuse was accepted once it was revealed is a liar or a moron.

Anybody who can claim (or imply) that the initial police investigations under Graham Power and Lenny Harper were dysfunctional, and only gained a professional footing once Warcup and Gradwell took over either a liar and a moron.

Of course, there's a strong possibility that they might be a liar AND a moron.

Or alternatively .... When You Resort to randomly quoting denialist Anthony Watts, it adds to likelihood that you are a liar or a moron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American blogger who runs Watts Up With That?, a popular climate change denial blog ....

Education and career

Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[14] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]

"......attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree...."

I wonder why such a person should get errrr..... 'negative feedback' when he pretends to know what he is talking about

He and the Heartland Institute are made for each other. The Heartland Institutes mantra was that smoking was not injurious to health.

It strikes me that Anthony Watts is to climate science what Kristina Moore is to good governance and child protection.

very good posting from Tony the Prof on Lewis. I had forgotten that he had blamed the police officer who took his statement to Wiltshire for being inaccurate, one more to join the list. As Lewis found himself under pressure from being questioned he started to blame everyone else,Lenny knew one of the ACPO officers therefore that report could not be relied onWendy Kinnard and her husband lied about the discussions that took place in the October prior to the suspensionThey had fabricated evidence in the contemporaneous record they had taken at the timeWendy Kinnard and Graham Power were having an affairGraham Power was not telling the truthGraham Power was stage managing the inquiry, as were his supporters who he described as extremely strange people.During his testimony he played the poor little old me card how difficult life had been for him and how tough it was answering questions in the states.Now I believe his statements not only were untrue but also slanderous, is this the behaviour PPC and states members find acceptable.posted byAn extremely strange person

So, did the Inquiry check whether this interview [of suspect 737] took place or not? If the interview did take place, what was the result? If it did not, should this not be taken as prima facie evidence of outside influence on the conduct of the Inquiry?

All this was known to the Inquiry as it is contained in the evidence submitted to them by Graham Power and (however incidentally) by Mick Gradwell.

The Inquiry would not have been justified in ignoring this on the basis that the allegations did not refer to children. Interference is interference and would be indicative of a prevailing culture. Over the years many victims/survivors have complained that their complaints were not taken seriously or that they had been intimidated into withdrawing them.

Strangely, the Inquiry took a completely opposite approach when it came to the older Victoria College scandal:

REPORT QUOTE "The SOJP investigations into Victoria College, Paul Every and the Sea Cadets are not within the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. We considered evidence about these investigations on the basis that the conduct and attitude of Police officers and others to those investigations might be relevant to the Police response to allegations of abuse of children in care."

This [& many other things] raises the question of whether the Inquiry itself has, despite all its protestations, been subject to interference.

You might be right about this, but it would require an extraordinarily narrow and blinkered interpretation of the terms of reference to believe that the Jervis Dykes affair at Victoria College should be deemed outside the inquiry's scope.

By any normal interpretation Victoria College cared for children (as does any school), and indeed it provided a home for full-time boarders (Victoria College House). I'm not sure whether Victoria College is technically a private institution (my guess is that it is owned by a trust), but in reality it is heavily subsidised by the States, and comes under the remit and responsibility of the States of Jersey Education Department.

I believe that any reasonable person would take the view that the COI should have devoted a great deal of attention to the Jervis Dykes scandal. It provides a considerable and well-evidenced insight into exactly how Jersey's civil servants, establishment figures, and some of its police officers, behave when faced with allegations of child abuse. Indeed, it is a microcosm of the entire child abuse scandal, and remarkably instructive of how utterly dysfunctional this island can be.

And, of course, as seems to be perpetually the case, the name of Philip Bailhache looms large.

It is very difficult for me to understand why the COI failed to examine the affair, without straying into the realms of cynicism. There is considerable room for interpretation of terms of reference. and I think a robust and truly independent COI would have had no difficulty with this.

I agree with every word of that. I was simply trying to fathom the reasoning behind the COI's remark.

Anonymous @ 20:44

Yes, Cornelisson was very scathing and very informative about the whole VC scandal.

No idea what too late means, whether it's time bound or witnesses no longer available, or just another way of saying they don't want to go there.

This last reason might be suggested by their apparent reluctance to follow up on the questioning of Person 737 despite the pivotal importance of this matter in the determination of the extent of outside influence on SOJP inquiries and their (COI and/or SOJP) reluctance to go after the big fish.

Lewis is dispensable provided he can be got to keep his mouth shut. He was definitely a piece of low hanging fruit for the COI.

An interesting 'interference' I'm tonight's Rag comes from John Boothman who opines Andrew Lewis innocence due to pressure and mistakes .we know that doesn't hold water but the very fact he is saying this is an obvious 'why would he do that?'. The lines of connection here are not to Power and Lewis but very strongly to a witness hiding in'plane' sight. Do the search!

I agree with him that the Inquiry into Child Care, AKA abuse, should [& could] have been completed within the £6m budget but it is interesting that he was moved to write this letter and does not mention the poor value of the CoI failing to procure some of the most vital witnesses.

All that "poor Andrew, he used the wrong words under pressure, who wouldn't?" schtick.

What Boothman fails to address is all the other outrageous claims made by Andrew Lewis, for example, that Wendy Kinnard and her husband fabricated evidence to the inquiry and therefore both lied to the inquiry, according to Lewis.

What have you got to say about that John Boy? Is Andrew Lewis telling the truth about that? Or did he mis-speak, again and again, again?

All this talk of the costs of the inquiry just plays into the hands of the detractors. There are criticisms that can be made. The reality is that using lawyers in any scenario is expensive but their training brings an incisiveness to the proceedings and the handling of complex material. The questioning of Andrew Lewis by the female lawyer from Eversheds is a case in point. She was brilliant.She has since been made a QC. Well seserved in my view. Any concern about costs should be directed at the States and their use of local lawyers.

While I tend to agree with your first point, I think the notion that lawyers bring incisiveness to proceedings, or are unusually competent at handling complex material, is somewhat debatable. My experience is that lawyers tend to be anything but incisive - especially when paid by the hour, as they tend to be - and their primary skill is making the straightforward appear complicated through the liberal use of arcane language.

"and in fact no material deception took place, as Mr Warcup’s summary of the Met’s findings proved to be substantially accurate."

Notwithstanding the Met Police "Operation Tuma" “The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle." We also had the findings of the Care Inquiry who found Mr. Warcup misrepresented the Met Report.

Others might want to continue ripping Mr. Boothman's article to shreds (using documented evidence) but in truth I don't think he is kidding anybody but himself.

The JEP's Boothman must be on Magic Mushrooms.So all of a sudden after what the JEP has said following the COI Report in their editorials and headlines Boothman reckons Lewis is a decent, intelligent and honourable man.What was that comedy in the 80's.... Confused? You will be after this next episode of JEP Soap....What a yarn...

Some "friends" of Lewis are desperate to do what they can to prop him up for fear that the whole house of cards will fall down and they will themselves be exposed. Be sure about one thing: favours are being called in wherever they can be to shore up the crumbling ediface that is the Jersy Way and the old guard for so long protected by its incidious and corrupt influence. The amusing thing now is that it is so,so obvious to all.

As a former Northumbria officer I invite you to speak to anyone in that force who knew David Warcup. He was known as a bully and a man who held the record in unsuccessful attempts to get to chief officer, a man obsessed by personal ambition and lacking a moral compass. He was bad news for Jersey.

In the Letters to the Editor tonight, Gerard Baudains says "I was there and didn't feel misled" ! Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the only thing he did in the States was get TTS to change the law so he could get home quicker from Snow Hill car park ?

I see the JEP throwing the Jersey Way mud in time honoured fashion tonight at Deputy Mike Higgins. As someone on the Rag's echo chamber states. They and their establishment masters are after Higgins just like they tried to smear Syvret and the Pitmans. Throw in the farcical Boothman piece supporting Lewis, this man has always hated lefties, and you see that our collapsing newspaper has never changed its stance or leanings. The Jersey Way mouthpiece. Simples. Why not an article on how much their mate Walker has taken for his few days work on various boards since leaving politics?

Gerard Baudains has form for siding with those who were trying to rubbish the abuse investigation. He was always a political irrelevance anyway. Highlight of his time in the States being the occasion he lodged a vote of no confidence in the Transport Minister, then after a lengthy speech, failing to even get a seconder for his proposition. Truly useless.

''Following the appointment of Detective Superintendent Gradwell, further work has been completed which supports the view that the enquiry has not met the standards which might be expected in an investigation of this nature and in following sections I have provided a brief synopsis of what I feel are the key issues.

Warcups opinions and further work completed by whom? The Jersey Way ''I have provided a brief synopsis'' not the Metropolitan police have provided.

2nd quote from David Warcup in his own letter

Central to all these issues is the lack of proper oversight and proper application of standard working practices, including financial and HR. Unless action is taken to address these issues then I would suggest that the force could yet again find itself the focus of attention at the centre of another critical incident.

My observation Both quotes are what David Warcup feels are issues and his own opinions Perhaps the JEP could ask Mr. Boothman to clarify his statement or provide the report and page number he is quoting from

VFC, what do you know about the then Deputy Lewis's failed attempt to get parishioners support for redeveloping the Butlin playing fields in St John? He may have, 'mistakenly misled' a few people while doing so (But not Lady Butlin)

How come bailhache seemed to know what was in the report because he should have not known. bailhache is one of the most states members to lie to save the rich friends of the establishment and the people who did some of the child abuse ( victoria college ). The holland affair.